Constitutionalism In Constitutional Law

2320 Words10 Pages
Constitutional law is interested with the duty and powers of the institutions of the government and with the relationship between the citizen and the government. The United Kingdom’s constitutional development has an unbroken history starting from 1066. ‘Constitutionalism’ is the doctrine which governs the lawfulness of government action. Constitutionalism suggests the things that are far more important than the concept of ‘legality’ which expects official conduct to be as per pre-settled lawful guidelines. In brief, constitutionalism suggests the limitation of power, the separation of powers, the doctrine of responsible accountable government and the protection of individual rights and freedoms. The constitution sets limits both to the powers…show more content…
The principle of the separation of powers believes that the work of the government can be divided into three functions: legislative, executive, and judicial, and that each function ought to be carried out by a different institution, each institution being separated from the other two. The legislature should make the laws, the executive should be responsible for the administration of the laws, and the judiciary should determine disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the laws. Each institution should follow its prescriptive work and should make sure that it does not trespass onto the territory of the other two. The three agencies should be not only separate from each other but also equal to one another. The role of each of the institution are clearly stated to prevent the abuse of power occurs between the institutions. If there is no separation of powers between the institutions, there would be no more liberty because the two powers would be joined together as the same persons in two different institutions would sometimes have and always be able to have a share in both institutions. It can be clearly seen that the doctrine of the separation of powers does lead official…show more content…
A system of checks and balances obviously involves one agency encroaching on the preserves of another. For instance, prior to the Human Right Act 1998, the judiciary branch acted as a powerful, though strictly limited, check upon the executive branch, through the availability of judicial review. Under the traditional heads of judicial review, the judiciary branch ensures that Ministers and other public authorities do not act outside the powers lawfully given to them by Acts of Parliament, or by the accepted government prerogatives; that they do not misuse powers given for one objective for another; that decisions are taken in a way which is procedurally equal and proper; and that their decisions are not grossly unreasonable. All this is for the purpose of safeguarding liberty. For example, if the legislative part really supposes that a particular bill ought to become a law, they can overturn the president’s veto. The bill gets to return to the legislative part and if most of the people in the group are of the same mind, this will override the president’s veto and the bill eventually is a law. Therefore, it is obvious that the system of checks and balances in the doctrine of the separation of powers does guide official
Open Document